As most readers have surmised by now, I was Juan Non-Volokh. I explained my decision to blog under the JNoV pseudonym at the beginning and at greater length in my last post as Juan. As I noted in the latter post, the concerns that prompted my use of a pseudonym were never exclusively (if even primarily) ideological. Nonetheless, I would agree with those who think I was overcautious. My colleagues at Case voted unanimously to grant me tenure this year. However things may have looked in 2002, I have no reason to believe the outcome would have been any different had I contributed to the VC under my own name. In any event, I hope VC readers have enjoyed my posts as Juan, and that you all find my future posts on this site worthwhile as well.

Prof. Adler: Something that came up in the other thread was the curiosity that you took up blogging at Southern Appeal, Bench Memos, etc., while still keeping up the JNoV persona here at VC. Did those ventures lead you to consider revealing yourself here as well?

It's a little more complicated than that. I had been a contributor to NRO (including ocasional Corner posts) before I became an academic and before Eugene asked me to join the VC. At the time, I largely confined my writing on NRO to issues on which I already had a track record prior to entering academia. As I've noted before, I was concerned that some might think that my pre-existing political interests and commitments would compromise my success as a an academic. Over time, as I published more academic articles and received positive feedback from my colleagues about my writing, teaching, and the like, I gradually expanded my horizons -- blogging about judicial nominations on NRO, guest-blogging at Southern Appeal, blogging on The Commons, writing WSJ op-eds, etc. WIth each step, the case for retaining the JNoV personna diminished. I also became increasingly frustrated about my inability to blog more substantively about my research interests while retaining the pseudonym. The question then became when to give it up. I almost did so several times in the past two years, in part because I did not think it was much of a secret anymore, but was discouraged from doing so by friends and colleagues who (in an overabundance of caution) thought I should wait until tenure -- and I did. Had I to do it all over again, I am not sure I would have adopted the pseudonym in the first place, and I doubt I would have maintained it for as long (4 years) as I did.

Prof. Adler, a number of people are curious in retrospect about the whole Brian Leiter affair, since it seems there wouldn't have been any particular consequences if you had been outed at that time. Were you simply sticking up for the general right to be anonymous? Your thoughts are appreciated.

I wonder if bloggers who use their own names risk being "unconfirmable"? i.e. SCOTUS, Fed. bench, cabinet postions, etc. Of course one should always use caution before firing-off commentary that isn't well-thought out. Blog-trails are easily discoverable and I suspect vunerable to wild misinterpretations for ulterior motives. I'll stick to my pseudonym, thank you.

I think the monicker was somewhat, if unintentionality, misleading. Obviously it comes from Jonathan, but the choice was poor.

Volokh is located in Los Angles, and with a pseudonym like Juan one could reasonably have the impression that the blog had some, as they say, ethnic diversity. It turns out that Juan is yet another Jewish law professor, exactly the same demographic as most of the other bloggers here. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the Juan thing was subliminally misleading IMO.

Seems to me penn names and acting names are nothing new. I have pondered the question of whether it is ethical to give false but similar background information just to keep your identity from being revealed. For example, is it ok to say you have a degree from Harvard when you actually graduated from Yale. Did you use such deceptions or was it strickly a lack of information?

The pseuodonym was not misleading. The reader's assumption that the name Juan suggests a particular ethnic or racial group demonstrates the reader's narrow minded view and not that of the Volokh Conspiracy.

Given the transient nature of people and the availability of name alternatives via the internet, I've often found that a person's name offers some anecdotal insight into their background at best.

If the reader dislikes the viewpoints or backgrounds of those on the Volokh Conspiracy, he or she should consider asking to be a guest blogger instead of needlessly attacking Adler's psuedonym choice.

Any personal information I relayed in various posts -- where I went to school, grew up, etc. -- was always accurate. While posting under a pseudonym, I sought to be honest in the content of all of my posts.